Episode 793: The Emergency Mailbag Edition
Date January 8, 2016 Summary Ben and Sam banter about Kenta Maeda’s physical, then consult an official scorer and answer emails about a market correction, the Dodgers’ spending, the Yankees’ and Cubs’ bullpens, and Dave Stewart. Topics * Free agent market correction * Los Angeles Dodgers spending ideas * Official scorer decision explanation * Optimal bullpen construction strategy * Dave Stewart and free agent signing decisions Intro The High Llamas, "The Goat Looks On" Outro Dave Rawlings Machine, "The Weekend" Banter * It was revealed that Kenta Maeda's physical had "irregularities" which Ben and Sam think explains the contract that he signed with the Dodgers. * Maeda's contact was discussed in detail in Episode 789. * What contract information do teams have access to for other players? * Ben jokes that maybe Maeda's physical revealed that he had 'goat elbows'. * Ben and Sam hope that the Deadwood movie gets made. Email Questions * Sean (Atlanta, GA): "I have a theory as to why we aren't hearing all that much about Justin Upton, Yoenis Cespedes, and Chris Davis, a market correction in terms of the way teams value all around players versus offense first sluggers. Thoughts?" * Michael: "As a Dodgers fan I'm conflicted as to how the Dodgers should use their supposed riches. It would be wonderful to have signed Greinke but that contract is insane. Instead of signing free agents to play for them, could they sign free agents to play for other teams? For example, Alex Gordon just resigned with the Royals for approximately $70 million. Could the Dodgers have signed him for $80 million, traded him to the Royals and paid $20 million of the contract? The Royals send back 1 or 2 prospects and save $10 million. Obviously there are additional complications with the Dodgers losing a draft pick in this scenario, but could it work? How much would it cost for the Dodgers to get a team's third best prospect? Best prospect? If there is no rule against this would the league immediately outlaw something of this nature? If teams are willing to trade big prospect packages for 2 months of a star, why not a big package for 5 years at a 30%, 40% or 50% discount?" * Greg: "On August 14th-16th of 2015 I witnessed a wonderful sweep of the Mets by the Pirates at Citi Field. All's good with that and it would have blended into the bittersweetness of the Pirates' early ended 98 win season. That is, if it weren't for a particular play during the Sunday day game, the only game for which I was keeping a scorecard. With Juan Lagares and one out, Cespedes pulled the ball to third baseman Aramis Ramirez. The ball was to Aramis Ramirez's left, he fielded it, paused, hesitated, and lobbed to Walker at second. Lagares, who must have had a good jump, slid in safely to second and while I'm not sure whether or not Walker made the turn or held the ball, Cespedes was safe at first. The official scorekeeper called fielder's choice in the stadium and the MLB GameDay app aggred, saying Lagares advanced to second but without giving any reason for him to have done so. My father and I were dumbfounded. No hit for Cespedes, whose batting average dipped due to the fielder's choice. No error for Ramirez whose status as a superior defensive third baseman to Pedro Alvarez remained untarnished. The play resulted in the Mets' win probability, granted in the bottom of the first in a game they would go on to lose 8-1, jumped 3.7% from 54.7% to 58.4% which I know it would have done anyway regardless of the scorekeeping. But still, I've been bothered by this since that day. I have checked several record keeping sites since, at first expecting amended statistics and then hoping for them in vain. Am I missing something from a scorekeeping perspective? What is going on here?" * Mike: "So the Yankees look like they are going full Royals with their bullpen construction strategy. The Cubs appear to be going for a different strategy which is based more on versatility. I count four former starters among those in the mix for and indeed likely to make the bullpen. I guess the thinking there is that the Cubs can tinker with the rotation if Hamill or Hendricks struggle or even go to something that approaches a four man rotation. What I find most interesting about these two strategies is that the clubs have essentially confirmed that this is what they are doing with their moves. Most notably the Yankees actually trading Warren to the Cubs. So what are the relative merits of each strategy? Which team is doing it right? Or is that a dumb question, which is to say can they both be right?" * Dan (New Jersey): "Dave Stewart recently said that he will not sacrifice another draft pick by signing another player who declined a qualifying offer. However it would seem to me to make sense to sign more than one such player in any given offseason so that the compensation is mitigated. If you were going sign three QO players over a five year window it would be best to sign them all in one offseason so you could give up a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round pick instead of three 1st if they were spread out. Furthermore this is exactly what teams do with international amateurs. Teams often exceed the cap by a large amount in one year and handcuff themselves in the next two years. Other than possible financial limitations, why wouldn't teams go on shopping sprees in free agency every two to four years?" Notes * Teams cannot trade a player that was signed as a free agent for a few months, which makes the scenario that Michael proposes against MLB rules. * The official scoring decision in Greg's question was correct because if Ramirez had chosen to throw directly to first, he would have likely gotten Cespedes out. * Sam would rather have the bullpen that is built from the Cubs' strategy. Links * Effectively Wild Episode 793: The Emergency Mailbag Edition Category:Episodes Category:Email Episodes